Implementation of an IPv6 Multihoming Ingress Filtering Compatibility Mechanism Using Automatic Tunnels

  • Carlos Barcenilla
  • Antonio Tapiador
  • David Fernández
  • Omar Walid
  • Tomás P. de Miguel
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 196)

Abstract

Nowadays, many organizations need to be multihomed in order to achieve fault tolerant Internet access. Unfortunately, the hierarchical nature of IPv6 addressing architecture poses some threats on multihoming. The IETF is designing a solution based on the discussion of several approaches to solve the problem. Ingress filters are part of the problem, so ingress filtering compatibility mechanisms are needed. This paper discusses the host-centric multihoming approach and describes an implementation of an ingress filtering compatibility mechanism based on automatic tunnels and anycast addresses. The implementation has proven to work properly, being easily developed and deployed.

Keywords

IPv6 multihoming ingress filtering 

References

  1. Bagnulo, M. et al. (2004). The Case for Source Address Dependent Routing in Multihoming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3266, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. Bu, Tian, Gao, Lixin, and Towsle, Don (2002). On Characterizing BGP Routing Table Growth. Proceedings of IEEE Global Internet Symposium 2002.Google Scholar
  3. Crocker, D. (2003). Multiple Address Service for Transport (MAST): An Extended Proposal. Internet draft draft-crocker-mast-proposal-01. IETF. September 2003.Google Scholar
  4. de Launois, C. et al. (2003) The NAROS Approach for IPv6 Multihoming with Traffic Engineering, Proceedings of QoFIS 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  5. Draves, R. (2003). Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), RFC 3484, IETF, 2003, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3484.txtGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunmore, M. (Editor) (2003). Report on IETF Multihoming Solutions, version 2. Deliverable 4.5.1, 6NET Project. http://www.6net.Org/publications/deliverables/D4.5.lv2.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. Hagino, J. and Snyder, H. (2001). IPv6 Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers. RFC 3178, IETF, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3178.txtGoogle Scholar
  8. Huitema, C. (2004). Host-Centric IPv6 Multihoming. draft-huitema-multi6-hosts-03, IETF, Work in progressGoogle Scholar
  9. Matsumoto, A. et al. (2004) Source Address Selection Policy Distribution for Multihoming, draft-arifumi-multi6-sas-policy-dist-00, IETF Work in progress.Google Scholar
  10. Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P. and Henderson, T. (2005). Host Identity Protocol. Internet draft draft-ietf-hip-base-02. IETF. February 2005.Google Scholar
  11. multi6. Site Multihoming in IPv6 (multi6). IETF Working Group. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/multi6-charter.htmlGoogle Scholar
  12. Tapiador, A. et al. (2004). A simple host centric solution for a network research multihoming environment. In Proceedings of EUNICE 2004Google Scholar
  13. Teraoka, F., Ishiyama, M. and Kunishi, M. (2003). LIN6: A Solution to Multihoming and Mobility in IPv6. Internet draft draft-teraoka-multi6-lin6-00. IETF. December 2003.Google Scholar
  14. Troan, O. and Droms, R. (2003), IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version, RFC 3633, IETF. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3633.txtGoogle Scholar
  15. VNUML Tool. http://www.dit.uprn.es/vnumlGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Barcenilla
    • 1
  • Antonio Tapiador
    • 1
  • David Fernández
    • 1
  • Omar Walid
    • 1
  • Tomás P. de Miguel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Telematics Engineering, Telecom Engineering School (ETSIT)Technical University of Madrid (UPM)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations